What they're talking about isn't paying to use the standard, but paying for the text of the standard itself.

What is the difference between paying to use the standard and paying to get
a copy of the standard so that you can use it? In other words, use of the
standard is free and anyone can use the standard, but how are they to
comply with a set of standards that they cannot read to compare
themselves to? (Ignoring, of course, "stealing" the copy written material
from the internet) If you do it all completely legally either way you're paying
them so you can skip the regs. And if you aren't going to do it all completely
legally then why even bother in the first place?

The whole bit (11:05-12:03) just seemed to contradict itself over and over,
at one point "No one can be denied access to the regulation." and "We
wouldn't say these people can use it and those people can't."

The next minute "We cannot go to [people] and say 'No, you cannot use
that standard.', [But] we can go to [people] and say 'Yes, that standard will
cost you X dollars because we own it.' And we will get compensation for use
of our proprietary intellectual property."

From the above quotes it looks like its the other way around than you said.
Anyone can read and look at their alternate standards, but to use them you
must pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gundamnitpete

2:25, james says "i have a video data link on my big stik 60"

video data link=FPV

He actually mentions FPV by name at one point while talking about the
"extreme" parts of RC. We were mentioned, then turbines....not good.

What i was point out was that he was saying that he, himself, flies FPV. In his previous statement he just said "FPV"

not, 'I have a video data link on my big stik 60"

I don't think that's what he meant, I think he means he flies LOS and lets
people watch the downlink on the ground. But who knows, maybe you are
right. Either way this is not really pertinent to the topic; the laws.

I don't think that's what he meant, I think he means he flies LOS and lets
people watch the downlink on the ground. But who knows, maybe you are
right. Either way this is not really pertinent to the topic; the laws.

either way he's got a video data link on his aircraft, and likes to go barn storming.

A question that comes to mind is how can a government-mandated standard be considered "proprietary intellectual property" by the AMA or anyone else? I'm an AMA member, but I find Hanson's statement to that effect absurd. I'm pretty certain any new "standards" will end up being published as FARs, to which no private body has an exclusive right to remuneration.

I guess we'll just have to see how this works in practice. Honestly to me the guy who said that sounded more like an attorney speaking in theory about abstract legal rights rather than somebody who had actually thought through the practical implications of what he is saying. Even if the AMA theoretically has the right to charge for copies of the standard, I doubt they really want to go to the lengths necessary to truly treat it as proprietary. They will likely find any copyright they wish to assert over this impossible to enforce, and if they try they'll risk alienating their members and the rest of the RC community by constantly sending take down notices to stop it from being posted on forums, blogs, etc. And even then they won't likely succeed in keeping it down, since all you have to do is instead of posting the whole thing verbatim, post parts of it with brief analysis of each section, and then that would be fair use and there's nothing they can do. So whether or not they have the legal right to assert a copyright over the standard, it would really be stupid and impractical to do so.

IMO even if they could copyright their standards there would be no way to force payment from anyone. You cannot get a patent or copyright on knowledge and their standard will be common knowledge since it would need to be published.
Certainly FAA isn't going to force people to join AMA nor are they going to support forced payment from non-members. I suspect an attorney would laugh if you told them you wanted to sue someone because they knew something you didn't want them to know.

The only way I can envision being locked into AMA would be if somehow the standards that are adopted require the use of AMA fields or a copy of an AMA field. FAA will make the final call on the standards and hopefully would see through any potential power grab.

I was very disappointed to hear that statement made in the meeting but at least you know what’s on his mind. You may have noticed that the two FAA representatives were silent on that point.

First let me say that James is a good guy and I have known him for 7 or 8 years. He works for the machine and the managers have a certain way of doing business.

The other group I refer to in the email is the RCAPA. We followed what the FAA said we needed to do, and to be perfectly honest it hasn't worked out very well. We had best practices, a testing program, guidelines and insurance. Yet, the FAA dismissed it all out of hand and the small business community finds themselves in a heck of a predicament.

Furthermore, Lynn lacks the empirical knowledge base to be in that position. Really there was very little sUAS experienced represented on the safety committee. Unfortunately, I cannot be at every show to give historical perspective to the process.

Hi James,

I watched the whole grueling series and find the message a little confusing. Again, the FAA contends that the hobby is safe and expects AMA to do the same thing they are doing now. However, they just need to write it down. If, I had been in attendance I would have to of course point out the incongruities as if it where truly the case, what/where is the source of contention, and why is the FAA still involved?

I don't believe AMA is conflicted with itself on what the members have been doing safely for 75 years. If, this is the case I've never picked up on it. Sure there are some internal squabbles, but overall they know what they want to do and already have it written down. I seem to recall that there was another group that took the FAA's suggestions, followed the party line and basically just got sandbagged.

Finally, I'm still having a hard time discerning the value gained by the taxpayer for the FAA going after this hobby??

I think a good point James made during the discussion is that everyone can comment on the new rules, before they come out. This will give every one of us a chance to oppose anything that is restricting us too greatly. Chances are very high that the new rules are going to be VERY restrictive to us FPV'ers, so it's important that all of us comment on the new rules when they let us, so that another one of our freedoms isn't impeded on by another damned govt. regulation.

I think a good point James made during the discussion is that everyone can comment on the new rules, before they come out. This will give every one of us a chance to oppose anything that is restricting us too greatly. Chances are very high that the new rules are going to be VERY restrictive to us FPV'ers, so it's important that all of us comment on the new rules when they let us, so that another one of our freedoms isn't impeded on by another damned govt. regulation.

Although I'm not trying to diminish the importance of commenting on the
NPRM, we all should, they have no obligation to change anything. We could
comment all we want and they could change nothing. If there is any hope it will
probably be through an alternate standard and the only one that is in the works
currently is the AMA's.

Blue is right on the money! They are under no obligation to change one word for whatever reason.

And this is where I think we fail as taxpayers.
A few bureaucrats are sitting at their desks about to write how to live your lives.

Let me tell you, I've lived in many countries, mainly European. I'm also a US Citizen and I pay my taxes. In a country that boasts so much words of "freedom" I've never in my life seen so many damned regulations dictating American lives. And I'm not even just talking about modeling nor fpv. And here comes another one that's going to tell me how to perform my own hobby.

I'll be damned if I sit here at my desk not say anything. I'm going to make a giant stink, even it it's just me. Commenting on the rules is just the beginning. Why don't we get the appropriate mailing address for the FAA and begin a mail rant from US FPV'ers. This should be happening NOW

It's coming... I've got another story coming out at sUASnews.com later this week with some grass roots action. Write your congresspeople and tell them your not going along with the chicanery... spend the money on alarm clocks for air traffic controllers or something useful.